What happened to 'We the People'?

[tms1337]

Look nearly anywhere in the U.S. and you'll find relatively high disapproval rates, with people who know that parts of the government are corrupt, inefficient, or simply wasteful. We know that our government is extremely powerful and lacking responsibility, and it seems the checks-and-balances system is starting to fade. We are still in wars that we were manipulated into. Healthcare is a joke, prices pollution are running higher and higher each day, and hopes are running low. The list goes on.


Yet through all this I see a serious amount of inaction. I feel confident that each individual knows what major problems need to be fixed, yet the collective remain either too scared or too intimidated to enact change. It seems the people have forgotten or simply don't know just what our country is all about; any opposition to the government is not treason, its patriotic. Instead of going out and protesting and calling to action any type of activist group, we sit in our homes playing with the toys we couldn't afford.

This is why we are at this point in history - one of the few chances that the people, not the government, had the power to dictate where we wanted to go, and this is where it led us. No one person or group is to blame, but the american people have sit back for far too long.

My question is simple: why? Has technology made our lives so simple and comfortable that we don't care what happens to our neighbor, let alone people around the world? Is it the influence of the seriously lackluster media, caving in to not only the huge corporations that own them, but also intense pressure that the government has implemented?

My plan is to go into the media in some form or another, and I will change the way things work as much as I can. But, is it going to take some serious disaster or event to get people out of their stupor?

(Sorry if this post is confusing and unorganized, this was all from the top of my head)

[Homini Lupus]

I am not really an expert in society and history of grassroots movements but as I see it after WWII and the rise of "suburbia" the American society became more spread in small societal units (the single family houses and their neighborhood) and enjoyment of life became more private (by example cinemas loose their attractive power to TVs). Besides, afer two world wars, an economic crisis people felt that they had had their short side of the stick and it was time to enjoy prosperity and try to forget the nuclear weapons pointed at them. Prosperity brought its deal of problems, both because some groups were still getting discriminated (blacks, latinos, natives) and some found that they needed new purposes after wealth had be achieved (women and young generations); the blacks led the way to the use of the new medias which made possible more organised action and spread their ideas.
I think those narratives worked for some times to give an ideology to organised action but now we are flooded with informations and that makes all those narratives much more relative and action more difficult to take, as there is too much data to be evalued before acting and people are more cynical because of the vast offer of "ideals", which have become business. Besides comunication technology tends to distance people, as they are costantly in comunication with their friends but that way they erect barriers against the people around them.

[tp6626]

I predict a riot, at some point soon. At least in the UK when employment gets up to 3million.

[Bobert]

The government has made 'clear' efforts to prevent mass uprising against itself. Any organization will be dispersed if it gets too large or too powerful.

[tp6626]

The government has made 'clear' efforts to prevent mass uprising against itself. Any organization will be dispersed if it gets too large or too powerful.
Exactly what Adolph Hitler did!

[RBM]

I predict a riot, at some point soon. At least in the UK when employment gets up to 3million.

Why that number, what is that '%' wise ? I think the US is around 10% official, 17% unofficial.

[eternaltriangle]

Exactly what Adolph Hitler did!

Firstly, Godwin's law.

Secondly, Hitler, Mussolini and the Russian communists were products of mass protest, not opponents of it. I mean Hitler's party had a paramilitary wing. Moderate governments are right to take steps to prevent extremists from taking power or subverting public order. Peaceful protest is fine, but no quarter should be shown if things get out of hand.

Fascism is the likely consequence of anarchy - once the group with the most jackbooted thugs takes power.

[qwerty123]

Firstly, Godwin's law.


I almost liked to that.. but I was in the midst of a nice streak..

[phantasma]

Like others mentioned, people are too content and detached to do much about their complaints. Also, the overwhelming majority of the population is afraid of confrontation. Additionally, most Americans don't know where to begin in tackling the enormous organization that is the establishment. Not just the official government, but the bureaucrats, the interest groups, everything. It's faceless, enormous beyond comprehension, and possibly intimidating.

[Frag]

What are any of you doing about it, eh?

[dogwoodlover]

Those in power and authority have been in the business of "keeping the rabble in line" since the dawn of class societies. Ours is no different. Don't mistake the rhetoric of the Founding Fathers for anything that transcends the lessons of history.

It goes like this: Some people control society, others don't. It works for a time, and those in power manage to keep those beneath them under control. Eventually, however, those in power become increasingly incompetent (for various reasons) and those beneath them become increasingly restless. Those in power are overthrown by those beneath them, and those same revolutionaries then take power, and become the new ruling class. The cycle then begins anew.

This has been the history of class societies, and it will continue, unless if classes themselves are somehow abolished.

[Frag]

Don't mistake the rhetoric of the Founding Fathers for anything that transcends the lessons of history.
Most of it is ignored or otherwise circumvented anyway.

[tp6626]

Why that number, what is that '%' wise ? I think the US is around 10% official, 17% unofficial.UK working age population is I believe about 36mil. So 3mil would be just over 8%. This might not be high by US standards, but bear in mind that the UK has had extremely low unemployment rates for almost a decade.

Anyway, the 3mil figure is more of a symbolic level, which the media keep focussing on, and which will likely be a tipping point in the minds of the people likely to protest.

Firstly, Godwin's law.
Yes ok. I wasn't being totally serious you know. It was a tongue in cheek comment really. Just that Bobert was talking about the people in power doing everything in their power to prevent groups forming which could exert influence or be a possible threat.

The nazi's did this through the 30's, to the extent of banning public gatherings of more than a few people at a time. It is (or was) a good strategy to prevent an uprising; divide & conquer. It's just a fact, whether that demonstrates Godwin's law or not (saying it for efffect), is irrelevant to me.

Anyway, nowadays the people in power will have far more difficulty in preventing such coordination within groups.

Just look at what is possible through social networking sites like facebook, i.e. Flash-mobs. What would have taken weeks of secretive planning only 10-20 years ago, can now be undertaken far more effectively in the space of a few hours, using these sites.

Governments should be worried.

Oh wait a minute, they are (or at least the UK, US and Chinese Governments clearly are). Look at all the money spent on intelligence aimed at preventing terrorism. They have increased their legal powers for everything to do with terrorism no end since 9/11.

What would it take for them to label the leaders of a civil uprising terrorists, and lock them up without trial on this basis like they have done with suspected al quaeda operatives?

[RBM]

"Civil War in the United States?" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Almost simultaneously, a European agency called LEAP/Europe that issues monthly confidential Global Europe Anticipation Bulletins for its clients - politicians, public servants, businessmen, and investors - devoted its February issue to global geopolitical dislocation. The report did not paint a pretty picture. It discussed the possibility of civil war in Europe, in the United States, and Japan. It foresaw a "generalized stampede" that will lead to clashes, semi-civil wars.

The experts have some advice: "If your country or region is a zone in which there is a massive availability of guns, the best thing you can do...is to leave the region, if that's possible." The only one of these countries which meets the description of massively available guns is the United States. The head of LEAP/Europe, Franck Biancheri, noted that "there are 200 million guns in circulation in the United States, and social violence is already manifest via gangs." The experts who wrote the report asserted that there is already an ongoing emigration of Americans

You uropeens ready for us emmigrates ;-)

[ElstonGunn]

Those in power and authority have been in the business of "keeping the rabble in line" since the dawn of class societies. Ours is no different. Don't mistake the rhetoric of the Founding Fathers for anything that transcends the lessons of history.

The real genius of the American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence is in their rhetoric. They're worded elegantly with a lot of appeals to freedom and liberty, so people almost always think that that's what they're all about. They usually miss the part about how black people count as three-fifths of a person (or property), or the parts about how people can't be trusted to elect their own presidents and senators, or the parts about how more than half of the population isn't allowed to vote because they don't have the requisite Y-chromosome, or that one of its biggest concerns is the protection of wealth and property, which of course, very few people had at that time.

[eternaltriangle]

Just look at what is possible through social networking sites like facebook, i.e. Flash-mobs. What would have taken weeks of secretive planning only 10-20 years ago, can now be undertaken far more effectively in the space of a few hours, using these sites.

Governments should be worried.


I don't dispute that governments are worried, but I think a lot of them see an opportunity. For instance, Obama's campaign team never demobilized after the election. Right now an army of doorknockers is going around selling the president's agenda, and getting petitions signed. He is using technology (it is all very well-coordinated - and he has his insanely large email list) to give the appearance of unity in order to quash dissent in congress.

I also think we disagree on whether these changes are a good thing. You have a valid point that governments will be more accountable when dissent is easy to organize. I think mobs are undemocratic (they rarely reflect the population at large, and can sometimes force changes that are not in the national interest - eg. strikes in France), prone to illegal activities, and as much a potential tool for insulating the government as they are one able to keep the government accountable.

I think the main result of all this is that it makes things easier for populist demagogues and harder for technocrats (in your British case, I can't imagine Gordon Brown ever summoning a mob in his favour - he is a dull, unloved technocrat. David Cameron or the SNP, on the other hand, might be able to. Nick Clegg could try, but would probably find some way to come in third).

[tms1337]

think mobs are undemocratic (they rarely reflect the population at large, and can sometimes force changes that are not in the national interest - eg. strikes in France), prone to illegal activities, and as much a potential tool for insulating the government as they are one able to keep the government accountable.


I agree, organization is absolutely key to this issue. As you said, mobs eventually turn into riots, and by that point both the established authority as well as the protesters are far too involved in their cause to think clearly and logically. There is simply no way that we can outgun and bully the government into action; these are the steps to take if we want a facist country.

So the question is, how do people change the policies and the way the government is working?

The first option would be to elect the 'right' people into office. The officials who are on our side. Although they would be strongly opposed by mainstream politicians and ostracized by the media. But, at least in theory, we are a democratic society, so if the people were truly inspired, true, large scale change could come. But, as we all know, power eventually corrupts.

The more drastic measure is the total deconstruction of our government - a revolution. A few years ago I thought this might be the way, but the logistics are just too complex, mainly due to the size of our country. There would be a period of general anarchy and uncoordinated efforts to restructure the country. Possible power struggles, mini-wars, chaos.


Maybe we've established a world where we no longer have the power to do things like this.

[MichaelH]

So the question is, how do people change the policies and the way the government is working?

The first option would be to elect the 'right' people into office. The officials who are on our side. Although they would be strongly opposed by mainstream politicians and ostracized by the media.

Ayn Rand discusses the philosophical base of American government, the proper role of government, and why things are going the direction they are. It is true "we the people" are no longer represented by either party, but it is much deeper than any individual issue.

The phrase "officials who are on our side" is both correct and an example of the problem. Because the government is involved in the economy - and getting more so every day - society becomes a mass of pressure groups, each fighting for government favor. Witness the constant references to blacks, gays, businessmen, environmentalists, religious conservatives: there is no sense of America as a country any more, no cohesive ideology. There is only a bunch of groups loosely headed under a common banner.

Observe what happened in primaries these last two elections. Anyone with a significantly different viewpoint was quickly excluded from the process, regardless of popular support. (Ron Paul comes to mind, but there were others. Anyone who was truly anti-war or for the gold standard was outright ignored.)